Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. holds a Biologics License Application (BLA) for EYLEA®, a therapeutic product containing aflibercept, a VEGF antagonist used to treat angiogenic eye diseases. Regeneron also owns U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, which covers VEGF-trap formulations suitable for intravitreal injection. Several companies, including Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (SB), filed abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) seeking approval to market EYLEA® biosimilars. Regeneron sued these companies, including SB, for patent infringement in the Northern District of West Virginia.The district court consolidated the cases and granted Regeneron’s motion for a preliminary injunction against SB, enjoining it from marketing its biosimilar product in the U.S. without a license from Regeneron. The court found it had personal jurisdiction over SB based on SB’s aBLA filing and its distribution agreement with Biogen, which indicated plans for nationwide marketing, including West Virginia. The court also found that Regeneron was likely to succeed on the merits, as SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity of the ’865 patent for obviousness-type double patenting or lack of written description.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court had personal jurisdiction over SB, as SB’s actions indicated plans to market its biosimilar nationwide. The court also upheld the district court’s findings that SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity for the ’865 patent. The court found that the patent’s specific stability and glycosylation requirements were patentably distinct from the reference patent and adequately supported by the specification. The court also agreed that Regeneron had established a causal nexus between SB’s infringement and the irreparable harm it would suffer without an injunction. View "REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law

Steuben Foods, Inc. (Steuben) filed a complaint in 2010 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,209,591, 6,536,188, and 6,702,985. Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd. was added as a defendant in 2012, and a similar complaint was filed against HP Hood LLC. The cases were consolidated and later transferred to the District of Delaware in 2019. The district court issued a claim construction order in 2020 and denied cross-motions for summary judgment in 2021. A five-day jury trial resulted in a verdict that the asserted patents were valid and infringed, awarding Steuben $38,322,283.78 in damages.The district court granted Shibuya’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement for all asserted patents, found the invalidity arguments waived, and conditionally granted a new trial. Steuben appealed the JMOL and the conditional grant of a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’591 and ’188 patents, finding substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of infringement. The court affirmed the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’985 patent, holding that the continuous addition of sterilant could not be equivalent to the claim’s requirement of intermittent addition. The court also reversed the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement and vacated the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages, remanding for further proceedings.The main holdings were: reversing the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’591 and ’188 patents, affirming the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’985 patent, reversing the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement, and vacating the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages. View "STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. SHIBUYA HOPPMANN CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Lynk Labs, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400, which relates to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and LED drivers, specifically alternating current (AC) driven LEDs and LED circuits. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 7-20 of the '400 patent for obviousness. Lynk Labs disclaimed claims 14 and 18-20, leaving claims 7-13 and 15-17 in dispute. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determined that claims 7-13 and 17 were unpatentable for obviousness based on prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0206970 (Martin), which was filed before the '400 patent's priority date but published after.The Board found that Martin could serve as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1), which allows a published patent application to be deemed prior art as of its filing date. The Board also determined that claims 15 and 16 were unpatentable based on other grounds not involving Martin. Lynk Labs appealed, arguing that Martin could not be prior art because it was published after the '400 patent's priority date and that the Board erred in its claim constructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that under § 102(e)(1), a published patent application can be deemed prior art as of its filing date, thus Martin was properly considered prior art. The court also upheld the Board's claim constructions, concluding that the term "a plurality of LEDs connected in series" includes both individual LEDs and groups of LEDs connected in series, and that "matches" in the context of the forward voltage limitation includes both equivalence and a rectified input AC voltage output that is less than the forward voltage of the LEDs. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's findings and affirmed the unpatentability of claims 7-13 and 17. View "LYNK LABS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. " on Justia Law

A jury found that Pulse directly infringed Halo’s patents with products that it shipped into the U.S. and induced others to infringe those patents with products delivered outside the U.S. that ultimately were imported into the U.S. in finished products; it was highly probable that Pulse’s infringement was willful; and the Halo patents were not invalid. The jury awarded Halo $1.5 million in royalty damages. The court held that Pulse had not willfully infringed and taxed costs. Halo did not seek interest. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Pulse’s infringement was not willful. In June 2015, in the district court, Halo sought an accounting for supplemental damages and awards of interest. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the enhanced damages test applied by the Federal Circuit was inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. 284. On remand, the Federal Circuit vacated the unenhanced damages award with respect to products delivered in the U.S. and remanded. In the meantime, the district court awarded Halo prejudgment and post-judgment interest and supplemental damages for direct infringement. In November 2016, the court entered a stipulation of satisfaction of judgment for the $1.5 million damages award, including costs, supplemental damages, and post-judgment interest, expressly excluding prejudgment interest, enhanced damages, and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. There is no final decision because the district court has not specified the means for determining the amount of prejudgment interest. View "Halo Eelectronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc." on Justia Law

Joseph Phelps Vineyards has produced and sold wines bearing the trademark INSIGNIA since 1978. In 2012, Fairmont received federal registration for the mark ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA for cigars and cigar products. On Vineyards’ petition for cancellation, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied the petition, stating that: while it appears that Petitioner’s INSIGNIA branded wine has met with success in the marketplace, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner’s mark is a famous mark. The Federal Circuit vacated. TTAB erred in its legal analysis, in analyzing the “fame” of INSIGNIA wine as an all-or-nothing factor and discounting it entirely in reaching the conclusion of no likelihood of confusion as to the source, contrary to law and precedent. TTAB did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances standard, which requires considering all the relevant factors on a scale appropriate to their merits. View "Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The 320 patent describes single-brew coffee machines, such as the Keurig® system, and purports to address the incompatibility between pod-based and cartridge-based systems. The invention “more particularly relates to an adaptor assembly configured to effect operative compatibility between a single serve beverage brewer and beverage pods.” None of the claims as issued included any reference to a “pod,” “pod adaptor assembly,” or “brewing chamber for a beverage pod.” Instead, the relevant claims call for “a container . . . adapted to hold brewing material.” In 2014, Rivera filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that Solofill was importing beverage capsules that infringed the patent, in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337. Solofill’s K2 and K3 beverage capsules are made to fit into a Keurig® brewer, and include an integrated mesh filter surrounding a space designed to accept loose coffee grounds. An ALJ found no violation of section 337, The Commission affirmed, finding asserted claims invalid for lack of written description, and others invalid as anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the claims were invalid for lack of written description. View "Rivera v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Apicore owns, and Mylan Is the exclusive licensee of, the 992, 616, and 050 patents, which relate to isosulfan blue (ISB), a triarylmethane dye used to map lymph nodes. The 992 and 616 patents (together, “the process patents”) are directed to a process for preparing ISB by reacting isoleuco acid with silver oxide in a polar solvent, followed by reaction with a sodium solution. In response to Aurobindo’s FDA application to market a generic version of Myland’s drug, Lymphazurin®, Apricore and Myland obtained a preliminary injunction precluding Aurobindo from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the accused ISB product that allegedly infringes the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the district court’s “equivalents analysis” was deficient and there remains a substantial question concerning infringement, so that the court’s grant of a preliminary injunction based on the process patents constituted an abuse of discretion, the injunction stands under the 050 patent. View "Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2010, ArcelorMittal sued (050 case), alleging infringement of the 805 patent. A jury found that Defendants did not infringe and that the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated and obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed the court’s claim construction and concluded that, as a matter of law, the claims were not anticipated. In 2013, the Patent Office reissued the 805 patent as the RE153 patent. ArcelorMittal filed the 685 and 686 infringement suits based on events occurring after the reissuance and moved to amend its 050 complaint to substitute allegations of infringement of the RE153 patent. The court entered summary judgment, finding that claims 1–23 had been improperly broadened, and denied the motion to amend as moot. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of RE 153 claims 1–23, but reversed as to claims 24 and 25. On remand, the court granted defendants summary judgment of invalidity on RE 153 claims 24 and 25, denied ArcelorMittal’s motion to dismiss the 050 case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted ArcelorMittal’s motion to amend its 685 complaint. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, properly followed the mandate on remand, and properly exercised its discretion to deny ArcelorMittal’s request for new discovery. View "Arcelormittal v. AK Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Patent Board did not adequately explain why it accepted patent holder’s claim construction, but nonetheless found the claims unpatentable. Rovalma’s patent describes and claims methods for making steels with certain desired thermal conductivities. Böhler petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for an inter partes review of claims 1–4 of the patent. The Board instituted a review, rejected Böhler’s construction of the claims, and adopted Rovalma’s construction. Böhler had not submitted arguments or evidence for unpatentability based on Rovalma’s construction. Nevertheless, the Board determined that Rovalma’s own submissions demonstrated that the claims, construed as Rovalma urged, would have been obvious to a relevant skilled artisan over the same prior art that Böhler invoked. The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail for determination what inferences it drew from Rovalma’s submissions, making it impossible to determine whether the Board’s decision was substantively supported and procedurally proper. View "Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GMBH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

Statements made by the patent owner during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer. Aylus’s patent “provides systems and methods for implementing digital home networks having a control point located on a wide area network.” It teaches various network architectures for streaming and displaying media content using combinations of networked components. The Patent Office initiated IPR on two claims while Aylus’s infringement suit was pending. In its response to Apple’s request for IPR, Aylus made statements that the court subsequently characterized as constituting “clear and unmistakable surrender” of certain methods. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that Apple’s AirPlay feature did not infringe the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding construction of the limitation “wherein the CPP logic is invoked to negotiate media content delivery between the MS and the MR” to “require that only the CPP logic is invoked to negotiate media content delivery between the MS and the MR, in contrast to claims 1 and 20 which require both the CP and CPP to negotiate media content delivery.” Aylus’s statements during IPR were a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. View "Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law